"Michael Angelo Ravera" <maravera@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:037e8aab-258d-4b6b-9b03-e8e7682ffdde@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Apr 24, 7:37 am, Andrew <agump...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Apr 24, 3:09 am, Michael Angelo Ravera <marav...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 23, 6:08 pm, Andrew <agump...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 23, 12:35 pm, Michael Angelo Ravera <marav...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > ACBL, Midchart, Dealer and Vulnerablity irrelevant. No hand
records.
> > > > Partner and I are both BLMs. Opponents are both SLMs.
>
> > > > I opened 1C [ART, 15+, any shape] which partner alerted
> > > > (approximately
> > > > in time. He is sometimes a slow alerter).
>
> > > > LHO asks for an explanation and gets "15 or more points and the
club
> > > > bid is artificial".
>
> > > > LHO asks "could he have a weak no trump" (may have intended to ask
> > > > instead "do you play weak no trump"). Partner explains "No, 15 or
> > > > more
> > > > points. I don't know anything about his shape right now".
>
> > > Partner would have done better to give a one word answer: "No." The
> > > additional information (repeated from the first explanation) does
not
> > > help to elucidate his response.
>
> > > > LHO asks "so when would he open 1NT instead of 1C." Partner
answers
> > > > "1NT would be completely different hand".
>
> > > A better explanation would have defined your criteria for a 1NT
> > > opener. "A completely different hand" might mean "we open 1NT with a
> > > preempt in either minor" or some equally oddball criteria. LHO does
> > > not know.
>
> > > > LHO may have asked another question or two, but ended up passing.
>
> > > > My partner ends up declaring (3NT, I believe). RHO leads a club
and
> > > > I
> > > > call the TD. When she arrived, I explained that the "lead may have
> > > > been 'inspired' [demonstrably suggested] by unauthorized
> > > > information".
>
> > > Normally, when inexperienced players ask questions about a call
>
> > I wouldn't call a Silver Life Master (1000-2500 Masterpoints) exactly
> > "inexperienced"
> > > because they have length in the bid suit, they ask questions like
"is
> > > that call natural? How many cards does it show? etc.) Nothing about
> > > the actual questions suggests any particular interest in the club
> > > suit. LHO did seem interested in the amount of values you had. And
> > > that suggests he has values of his own and was considering taking a
> > > bid (which he rejected presumably because he felt it was too
> > > dangerous) all of that is UI to RHO.
>
> > ... and if after asking his questions, he had doubled or bid any
> > number of clubs or used an artificial bid that showed or included
> > clubs or possibly included clubs (H+m, S+m, S+O/S, odc), I wouldn't
> > have said a damned thing. Our methods for coping with overcalls below
> > 2NT are almost as good (better at level, worse at strain) as without
> > an overcall (probably lots better than most Monster 2C/2D opener's
> > cope with overcalls below 3NT). Our methods of coping with UI are not
> > as good. Since this game doesn't have hand records, I'll never know
> > whether RHO had a logical alternative or not. What I did get was a
> > rulingthat indicated that I should play on and I did.
>
> > I didn't ask this question to say "see how evil my opponents were." My
> > motivation was to practice what I preach.
>
> > SNIPPAGE
>
> > > You were within your rights to call the director, but never in a
> > > million years would I have done it in this situation. You know, or
> > > should know, that bridge players are sensitive about having their
> > > motives questioned. Unless you can make a clear case linking the UI
to
> > > a subsequent action don't call--you are just upsetting people for no
> > > reason. If at the end of the hand you decide that the club lead was
> > > just to weird, then re****t it to the re****ter. Unless you can make a
> > > connection between the UI and the subsequent action you should not
ask
> > > for an adjustment.
>
> > This was more of a case of protection than anything else. At the time
> > that I called the TD, I had no way of knowing whether a club lead
> > would benefit or hurt the defense. I only knew that I thought that it
> > was suggested by UI.
>
> Why?
>
> > In my mind, one of the three facts necessary for an adjustment was
> > there. "Play demonstrably suggested by the UI".
>
> How did the UI suggest a *club lead*?
>
> You have made the same point in several of your response through this
> thread, (that you believed the questioning suggested a club lead) but
> you have never stated a reason for that belief. I have often looked at
> my own hand and been able to infer why LHO was hesitating or asking
> questions. But that does nto mean that LHO was able to communicate his
> interest via UI to his partner.
>
> Even if your radar is correct that LHO has clubs you must convince a
> director to believe you that UI for a club lead was present. And for
> that you have to make a case linking LHO's behavior to clubs.
>
> We can all see that UI was present. We disagree with you only because
> we don't see how the UI suggested a club lead.
I don't know Andrew. I just consider any unusual interest in an
artificial bid (and my partner's first and canned explanation always
includes the word "artificial") as showing interest in the artificial
suit bid. Why else would he ask? Is he concerned about the nature of
his perill from my high card strength (that was clearly stated)?
****
He asked because he wanted to know more, and there was more to tell. For
example, he was interested in getting an understanding of what hands 15+
would not open 1C, and what your NT range is. Your partner's answer was
"1NT
would show a completely different hand" and that answer just does not cut
it. Different from what? ANSWER THE QUESTION. I can understand the
opponents' frustration at not getting answers. However, your partner's
explanation was the first time that *clubs* was mentioned in the exchange
of
questions and answers: "15 or more points and the club bid is artificial".
Other than that, nothing in the opponent's questions relates to clubs or
any
other suit, IMO. Had your strong forcing opening been 1D, the opponent
would have needed just as much additional information. It is only
incidental
that your strong forcing opening was 1C and not 1D.
****
If I had asked about a Monster 2C opener and posed the question as
"Under what cir***stances would he have opened 2NT instead of 2C?" am
I showing interest in clubs? YOU BET! I don't want to know about the
overall strength of his hand. I want to know that he 2C opener is
truely artificial and that it doesn't promise any clubs at all (not
even two or an honor singleton) so that I can *****s the nature of my
perill if I take a whatever club action (3C? 4C? UNU2NT? X for lead?)
I might be contemplating. The fact that I might be interested in
taking some sort of club action is UI to my partner!
The situation here is EXACTLY the same. The fact that the 1C had to be
alerted and the 2C didin't doesn't change things in my opinion. Just
because we have to alert our 1C opener and others don't have to alert
their 2C opener doesn't give opponents the right to act upon the UI
engendered by their questions, howevr legitimate they might be.
So, if, in this case, we allow that my LHO had some legitimate
interest in the nature of his perill should he take an action (and
wasn't baiting us to trip up on our explanations, so that he could
claim MI and get an adjustment) and wasn't trying to learn how to play
our system, what action might he be considering? Oh, I WONDER IF HE
HAS CLUBS! To me this is case closed that the UI suggests particular
interest in clubs (of course, he MIGHT have been interested to hear
that the 1C bid promised at least two clubs or something so that he
could hang a cue bid or takeout double on it, but that doesn't seem to
fit the picture).
Now, the ruling depends upon what RHO might have led anyway, and, if
the fact that he might have done something different might have worked
to his disadvantage, and all that. I'm pretty sure that the TD got it
right here.
As a player, I can only determine the "Demonstrably suggested" part of
"one play demonstrably suggested over another".
****
You seem to be alone in the finding that something in the exchange between
the opponent and your partner was UI that "could have demonstrably
suggested
a club lead". I don't see how you come to that conclusion. What was the
whole auction?
Raija
|
